THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32955 OF 2022 ORDER : (ORAL)

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to declare action of respondents in not granting Rythu Bandhu scheme to the petitioner in respect of his land admeasuring Acs.6-28 guntas in Survey No.63/A and Ac.0-04 guntas in Survey No.51/A situated at Raajavaram Revenue Village, Chilpur Mandal, Ghanpur (Station) Division of Jangaon District, as being illegal and arbitrary and subsequently, direct the respondents to deposit the amounts under Rythu Bandhu scheme into the bank account of the petitioner.

2. Petitioner claims to be owner and possessor of the lands admeasuring Acs.6-28 guntas in Survey No.63/A and Ac.0-04 guntas in Survey No.51/A situated at Raajavaram Revenue Village, Chilpur Mandal, Ghanpur (Station) Division of Jangaon District. The name of the petitioner is recorded in the revenue records and he was issued pattadar passbook No.T23020101016 with Khata No.60001. The petitioner had been receiving Rythu Bandhu benefits for the subject land up to 2021 (Rabi Season i.e., Yasangi Crop), and amounts were credited into the bank account of the petitioner. It is stated that petitioner did not receive the Rythu Bandhu benefits in respect of the subject land for the current Kharif season (Vanakalam) in 2022. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that Rythu Bandhu amounts were not credited to his account as complaint was lodged by respondent No.6.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.6 has instituted a suit for declaration, recovery and possession and cancellation of proceedings of the Tahsildar and cancellation of revenue entries made in favour of the petitioner in O.S.No.1272 of 2020 on the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. An I.A. No.468 of 2020 was filed in the said suit for grant of ad-interim injunction and order dated 23.11.2020 was passed in the said I.A. restraining the petitioner and others from alienating the suit schedule property (subject property), until counter is filed. Petitioner has filed counter affidavit in I.A. No.468 of 2020 and written statement in the main suit.

4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, injunction order is not subsisting. It is submitted even otherwise, there is no injunction or direction not to grant Rythu Bandhu benefits to the petitioner. Petitioner has issued legal notice dated 08.07.2022, calling upon the respondents to pay Rythu Bandhu benefits within three (3) days. However, the same was not acted upon, as such, petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 has submitted that petitioner has created fabricated un-registered sale deed and got his name mutated in revenue records by colluding with respondent No.4 - Tahsildar. Respondent No.6 is absolute owner and possessor of the subject land by virtue of registered sale deed bearing document No.3186 of 2015 dated 08.10.2015. Interim injunction order passed in I.A. No.468 of 2020 in O.S. No.1271 of 2020 is subsisting and was extended until further orders. Petitioner is not entitled for Rythu Bandhu grants.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel for respondent No.6, and perused the material on record.

7. It is fairly conceded by respondent No.6 that there is no order passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.1271 of 2020 restraining respondent authorities from disbursing Rythu Bandhu benefits. It is stated that injunction order dated 23.11.2020 was passed in I.A. No.468 of 2020 in O.S. No.1271 of 2020 only restraining the alienation of suit schedule property. Thus, it is clear due to wrong interpretation of the order dated 23.11.2020, Rythu Bandhu benefits were stopped to the petitioner. It is admitted fact that the suit is filed for declaration and recovery of possession. Thus, respondent No.6 is not in possession and no subsisting i